We are heading for a senseless nuclear Brexit - with no political or legal mandate

Read more

“Unlike other arrangements, if we don’t get this right, business stops. There will be no trade. If we can’t arrive at safeguards and other principles that allow compliance [with international nuclear standards] to be demonstrated, no nuclear trade will be able to continue.”

Asked by the chair of the Commons business, energy and industrial strategy select committee if that would see reactors switching off, he said: “Ultimately, when their fuels runs out, yes.” Cowen said that in his view there was no legal requirement for the UK to leave Euratom because of Brexit: “It’s a political issue, not a legal issue.”

The UK nuclear industry would be crippled if new nuclear cooperation deals are not agreed within two years, a former government adviser told the committee.

What is Euratom?

Euratom is a European treaty created in 1957 to promote research and cooperation on nuclear power. It oversees the non-proliferation of nuclear materials and inspections of Britain's nuclear material, such as the stockpile of waste at Sellafield in Cumbria. The treaty also coordinates European research into atomic power, in particular on fusion, a cleaner alternative to nuclear fission. The UK government says Brexit means leaving Euratom too. But lawyers say the treaty and the EU are legally separate entities and leaving the EU does not have to mean leaving Euratom.

“There is a plethora of international agreements that would have to be struck that almost mirror those in place with Euratom, before we moved not just material but intellectual property, services, anything in the nuclear sector. We would be crippled without other things in place,” said Dame Sue Ion, chair of the Nuclear Innovation and Research Advisory Board, which was established by the government in 2013.

She said movement of the industry’s “best intellectual talent” was made easier by the UK’s membership of Euratom.

The government said it was working on alternative arrangements to Euratom. Describing the notification of withdrawal as a “regrettable necessity” when article 50 is triggered, energy minister Jesse Norman said that the UK saw “clear routes” outside of Euratom to address issues such as the trade of nuclear materials.

“We take this extremely seriously and are devoting serious resources [to looking at new arrangements],” he told the Lords science and technology committee on Tuesday.

Tom Greatrex, chief executive of the Nuclear Industry Association, said there was a “lot to be done” to put in place transitional measures replacing Euratom.

“What we’re collectively warning about is the potential for there to be a very hard two-year period during which there are lots of other things the government has to deal with, that could leave it in a position where some of these things aren’t in place,” he said. Greatrex said one possible option was an associate membership of Euratom.

Over the weekend, the GMB union called on ministers to reconsider their “foolhardy rush” to leave the treaty, claiming it could endanger the “UK’s entire nuclear future”.

But the Office for Nuclear Regulation argued there could even be be some positives to leaving Euratom, such as a reduction in bureaucracy. “If we relinquish Euratom there would be reduced burden from not having to comply with directives,” said David Senior, an ONR executive.